Jagmohan Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 2 September, 2009

CRM-M 19883 of 2009                                     1


In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.



            Decided on Sept 02,2009.



Jagmohan Singh                                    -- Petitioner


                  vs.


Central Bureau of Investigation,Chandigarh
Sector 30                                         --Respondent.

CORAM:HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

Present: Mr.R.S.Cheema, Sr.Advocate, with
Mr.R.K.Trikha,Advocate,for the petitioner

Mr.S.S.Sandhu,Advocate, for CBI,Chandigarh.
respondent/State.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J:

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has applied for

anticipatory bail in case registered vide FIR No.Chandigarh CBI,ACB,Chg,

2009,RCCHG2009A0023 dated 13.7.2009, under Section 120-B IPC and

Section 7,13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,registered at

Police Station, Chandigarh CBI,ACB,Chandigarh.

The aforesaid FIR was registered on the complaint of Devish

Kaushal, partner of M/S Devish Departmental Store, Booth No.15, Sector

42-C, Chandigarh. The relevant portion of the complaint reads as under:-

“On 8.7.2009, morning the area Food Inspector Sh.Jagmohan
CRM-M 19883 of 2009 2

came to my shop with one another person and told me that he

wanted to fill up samples of Food items. I told him that

everything in my shop is in order and that he is harassing me

without reason. Sh. Jagmohan told me that I should not forget

that earlier also he had booked me. He further told that in case

I do not want to be harassed I will have to pay him a bribe

amount of Rs.3000/-. Sh. Jagmohan Singh also told me that

the person with him is Gurmohan Singh his assistant and that

he will send him to collect the money by Monday evening on

13.7.2009. He further threatened me that in case I do not pay

the bribe amount he will fill up samples and ensure that the

samples are not passed. Sir, I do not want to pay the bribe

amount. I request you to take action against Jagmohan Singh

Food Inspector”.

Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for

anticipatory bail which was dismissed by learned Special Judge,

Chandigarh, on 20.7.2009.

Mr.R.S.Cheema, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has,

inter-alia, argued that the complaint made at the instance of Devish

Kaushal is motivated because the petitioner was earlier booked for

keeping in his possession 20 Kg of white channa for public sale which

was unfit for human consumption. In the said case, the complainant was

acquitted on technical ground. It is submitted that the alleged amount of

bribe of Rs. 3000/- has not been recovered from the petitioner, rather, it

has been recovered from one Gurmohan Singh. It is submitted that even

after search of the residence of the petitioner, nothing incriminating could
CRM-M 19883 of 2009 3

be found. There is no complaint against him either with the police or CBI.

It is submitted that after the stay was granted, the petitioner has joined the

investigation.

The respondent has filed the reply to the bail application and

also to Criminal Miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner during

the course of hearing.

Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that statement

of Budh Singh son of late Hans Raj Singh, driver of Zypsy has been

recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who has disclosed that on 8.7.2009, at

about 9.30 am, he picked up the petitioner and Gurmohan Singh from

Govt. Multi Speciality Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh and went to

Sector 42-C Market,Chandigarh. He parked his vehicle near the road

and kept on sitting inside the vehicle whereas the petitioner and Gurmohan

Singh alighted from the vehicle and went to the back side of the market

where the shop of the complainant is situated. After 10 minutes, both of

them came back and then he took them to Hallomajra. It is also alleged

that shadow witness had heard the conversation between the complainant

and Gurmohan Singh who had stated that he had come to collect the

money on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that said Gurmohan

Singh had talked with the petitioner on his mobile after he was trapped.

Learned counsel for the respondent has further argued that apparently,

there was no reason for the complainant to have given Rs.3000/- to

Gurmohan Singh, who is working as a Peon in the office of Public Health.

It is submitted that Gurmohan Singh was acting as conduit for the

petitioner.

Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case
CRM-M 19883 of 2009 4

specially the allegation of demand of bribe by the petitioner who is a

public servant, I do not find it to be a case of an exceptional

circumstance for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, this bail application is

hereby dismissed

Sept 02,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain)
RR Judge